So what?

The Prime Minister is about to announce a modification to this OTT and unjustified PPL, reducing the maximum payout point from $150,000 per year to $100,000 per year.

So what?, I say. There are about 2 per cent of women of child bearing age earning over $100,000 per year, so the impact on the financial cost of the scheme will be infinitesimal. And note that the scheme is expected to cost at least $5.5 billion per year.

I have really tried to make some sense out of the government’s rationales for this scheme.

The idea that this is a workplace entitlement rather than a welfare scheme just doesn’t ring true – employers pay workplace entitlements, not taxpayers;

The idea that it isn’t fair that new mothers are not recompensed at their pre-birth earnings? Apart from the obvious inequity with public sector schemes (which do not last for six months by the way) – the private sector can do what it likes – this idea of fairness just looks completely loopy when the taxpayer is picking up the tab;

It will be good for smaller employers because now they can compete with large employers that currently offer generous PPL. Where is the evidence for this proposition? I have never seen anything to support this claim;

It will be good for female labour force participation. Again there is no evidence for this and recall we are dealing with a delta here – the comparison with the souped up PPL and the current one. Indeed, there is no evidence that taxpayer PPLs actually increase labour force participation because they actually pay new mothers to stay out of the workforce;

It will be good for productivity. Again no evidence and the PC report makes it clear that the reverse is quite possible because the most productive are the one most likely to return to work at the moment.

Oh and what about the idea of ensuring that women actually return to work? Good luck with that one. Can you imagine the administrative hassles associated with that and the excuses, many legitimate, that can be made for not returning to work – all of which will have to be accepted.

Just ditch the idea, I say. (And modifications to the existing scheme should also be made to outlaw double dipping.) We can’t afford it and the political optics are bad if other forms of government payments are being restricted.

The main (and only good) reason I can see for the scheme (and something I don’t think I’ve heard amongst the commentariat) is that this is a move to reduce discrimination. When it comes down to two people and the only difference is their gender, nearly every employer will go with the male because there is less chance of them leaving the workforce to have children (and wearing the costs involved). If the government pays the maternity leave entitlement rather than the employer, it should take away a lot of this discrimination.

I don’t necessarily agree with the scheme but I would have thought this is the main point that should be getting discussed.

They can abolish ppl, I was/am a working mother and would have much rather stayed home with my preschoolers. It’s so much fun working fulltime going home with sobbing babies, trying to juggle feeding baths nappies and the endless illnesses they pick up in childcare.
But no let’s introduce a debt levy so women have to go back because their husband just had a pay cut.

If the government pays the maternity leave entitlement rather than the employer, it should take away a lot of this discrimination.

Discrimination is not wrong in and of itself; it shows capacity for discernment of differences, and is generally to be encouraged. Generally, differences between people are to be celebrated and made the most of, not smoothed over. Because you simply cannot raise people up more than a marginal amount above their innate level, any smoothing comes through pushing people down, to the detriment of all.

The Prime Minister is about to announce a modification to this OTT and unjustified PPL, reducing the maximum payout point from $150,000 per year to $100,000 per year.

It’s a marginal change, for little benefit either politically, economically or demographically.

Far better: Return the last two years of income taxes receipted from a new mother. Better economics, better demographics, and no loss politically.

‘When it comes down to two people and the only difference is their gender, nearly every employer will go with the male because there is less chance of them leaving the workforce to have children (and wearing the costs involved). ‘

But this type of discrimination is already unlawful. The PPL might well discourage it – although there are other factors, including , as Judith has pointed out, the likelihood that the female employee may never return to work, that won’t help at all – but the main point is that a PPL seems a roundabout and expensive remedy for workplace discrimination against women when there are already bodies in place – including the Fair Work Commission – who have a key role – and indeed a legal obligation – to discourage and prevent it.

I agree with your arguments. About the only positive with the scheme is that if we are down to 2.5 taxpayers per retiree in 2050 then assisting with fecundity is possibly a good idea. But as per your points though, there appears to be no evidence to support this possible outcome.. Frankly it may be better to put the funds into childcare but again only after they have got rid of the job protection regs put in place by Gillard.

Employer-funded maternity leave is effectively a targeted tax on the other employees within that company. The larger the company, the larger the pool of non-pregnant staff is to spread the maternity leave costs.
If we insist on employer-funded maternity leave, and simultaneously use the law to stop discrimination against women of child-bearing age by small businesses, then we will see otherwise viable small businesses go out of business merely because they are unlucky enough to have a staff-member fall pregnant.

I have really tried to make some sense out of the government’s rationales for this scheme.

There isn’t any really, Judith. It was just a thought bubble from Abbott in the midst of the misogyny campaign, the objective being to silence the smears from Tanya of the Outrage and the Emily’s Listers. The policy objectives were political, not economic or social. The reflexive response of the Libs is to appease.

agree totally – as a soon to be 70 retiree, wife and self are lucky enough to be involved in intensive caring for 2 youngest grandchildren due to youngest daughter’s health – enjoying every moment, but it does get harder when you are older.

Our youngest daughter’s health restricts her ability to work, and we are happy, and lucky, that we are able to assist her, her husband and 2 children

Our other kids and Grandchildren are well on their way, and we enjoyed supporting them and continue to enjoy the chaos when all 4 families and 8 grandchildren are together.

At the other end my wife puts a lot of effort into helping her mother, but that is alleviated by having a lot of sisters (the boys of the family are useless)

Given the Government Debt, it is the wrong time to bring in the PPL, perhaps to help Government Debt we should take PPL away from the Public Service, ABC, SBS and all Govt Quango’s so they can see how the other half lives, and save the Australian Taxpayer some money

The main (and only good) reason I can see for the scheme (and something I don’t think I’ve heard amongst the commentariat) is that this is a move to reduce discrimination.

That doesn’t hold water.
If someone goes on extended leave, that’s a pain in the arse for an employer. It’s not a benefit. It’s not a plus at all. When someone goes on long sick leave or maternity leave or whatever, that person has to be replaced. Worse still, they have to be replaced by temporary staff because the position has to be held for her until she returns.

Hiring and replacing is not costless, and moreover can’t even be compensated with money. Even if there was extra ‘inconvenience’ money set aside for employers, it wouldn’t actually ameliorate the inconvenience.

Notafan. Agree with you. When my kids were little, there was no joy in going to work. It was nothing but a grind, at work, before work, and after work. And if one of the little buggers was sick in the night, then off I went to work with no sleep. Exhausting is what it was. Given a choice I would have stayed home.

Driftforge – I have long wondered why the govt doesnt allow a form of deferred income for use in maternity leave. Women would have the option of deferring income via special bank accounts, and as the income is deferred it attracts no income tax. When it is withdrawn, it attracts tax at the person’s current marginal rate. Easy to administer, no special dept needed, just something from the bank to say how much has been deposited and how much withdrawn, for the ATO to use to assess tax.

If you want some money while on leave, you save for it. If you dont care, then you dont save. Easy.

As a small employer, with 20 staff, most of whom are women, I run my own maternity leave scheme – we provide an extra month’s pay when they go and a bonus of an extra month’s pay when they come back (which is clawed back if they do not stay with us for 12 months). It works well.

Australia’s largest employer is the Australian Public Service.
57% of APS staff are female.

I think that all this proves is that all else being equal, the APS is a more attractive employer for those planning on becoming mothers. There is less reason to discriminate when there is no profit motive so the fact that. I was referring to private sector employers, you know, the ones that will be taxed to partly fund the PPL.

Hiring and replacing is not costless, and moreover can’t even be compensated with money. Even if there was extra ‘inconvenience’ money set aside for employers, it wouldn’t actually ameliorate the inconvenience.

I’m not saying that PPL eliminates the discrimination, only that it is lessened.

Abbott is a fucking idiot. This watering down of the PPL increases the chances that it’ll get through the Senate – it’s a lot closer to the Greens PPL scheme and they may well support it. So now it’s much more difficult for the LNP to quietly drop the proposal.

Even though personally I’d like one flat rate of tax for everyone I accept that some of the Australia’s lesser contributors may stop it happening.
Instead, rather than all these complicated tax benefits, the mad PPL, huge child care subsidies and parents adjusting their productive output to save tax, would it really send the country broke to simplify it all and allow couples to split their income? People with business income find it easy enough to do anyway.
How much would it cost if you included deleting all the middle class handouts (child care, PPL, FTB part B)?

The most important thing, IMHO, is to use the leftards’ outrage over the PPL scheme to remove the equivalent schemes (which I also resent paying for) at their ABC and the whole of the Federal and Tasmanian public services. If taxpayers of the North Island support paying for a PPL for their state public servants, that is not my concern (I aim not to be needlessly interventionist…)

Yes, the lliberals can make a little fuss when the Greens cut it back to $50,000 and then say oh okay.
And made it.conditional on a return to work for 12 months and the public sector provisions can be abolished /traded for a modest payrise.

I’m disappointed to see the PPL watered down. There is a certain ‘crank’ element on this site, but there are people out there with nothing to inherit in their 20s for whom the prospect of managing a mortgage and the cost of children is terrifying. In the grand scheme of things, the baby boomer generation has been a far bigger beneficiary of government hand outs than any other.

I’ll easily pay back whatever ostensible windfall I’d receive from this particular policy over the many years of tax contributions, funding the egregiously expensive pensions and aged care of the baby boomers, while continuing to be locked out of the property market.

Yes, the lliberals can make a little fuss when the Greens cut it back to $50,000 and then say oh okay.
And made it.conditional on a return to work for 12 months and the public sector provisions can be abolished /traded for a modest payrise.

This is the exact policy the Greens wanted. This was a political tactic to get it through the Parliament, not an economic or fiscal tactic

Tony Abbott will need the support of the Greens to get his PPL scheme through the Senate. The minor parties won’t support it. I wonder if he’ll mind being forever remembered as the PM who cut a deal with the Greens.

Tony Abbott will need the support of the Greens to get his PPL scheme through the Senate. The minor parties won’t support it. I wonder if he’ll mind being forever remembered as the PM who cut a deal with the Greens.

Well if he does then he’ll be yet another PM, after gillard and Rudd, to do deals with the devil.

In the grand scheme of things, the baby boomer generation has been a far bigger beneficiary of government hand outs than any other…I’ll easily pay back whatever ostensible windfall I’d receive from this particular policy over the many years of tax contributions, funding the egregiously expensive pensions and aged care of the baby boomers, while continuing to be locked out of the property market.
This is all true, Bertie, but…your generation’s situation will be even worse off with deficit budgets into the foreseeable future and a Leviathan state apparatus to support out of your taxes. A brighter future lies in cutting government spending and freeing up the economy so it can grow and provide good jobs for you and yours. In the meantime, let’s just hope the boomers realise how lucky they are.

Didn’t the Greens already support the changes to the debt ceiling?
So what if they do a deal, they don’t have a senate majority, okay I dislike the greens more than pup or Labor but they’re going to have to deal with someone or DD.

‘I think that all this proves is that all else being equal, the APS is a more attractive employer for those planning on becoming mothers’

That’s certainly a factor, but the over-representation of women in the APS – but not at senior levels, less than 40% of the SES is female – is also a result of both the ‘clericalisation’ of the service, with technical and trade jobs more or less eliminated compared to 20 years ago and the very strict merit and anti-discrimination legislation and policies that make it difficult, not to mention foolhardy, to discriminate or appear to on the basis of gender, including actual or potential pregnancy, in selections for engagement and promotion.

Which indirectly raises another issue. Whatever scheme may finally be put in place, it will ‘require’ at least a public service division to implement and manage it, with an SES Band 2 – salary package $285,000 pa and several SES Band 1s individual salary package $228,000- to manage it. That’s over a million p.a. for starters and it doesn’t include other staff, accommodation, support etc, not to mention the all the contracts to outside ‘facilitators’, ‘enablers’ and change managers to promote, explain and sell the scheme. Even a modest scheme will end up with a big administrative structure like this.

It should be abandoned ,we cannot afford it .the public service PPL shoul be scrapped too It discriminates against ALL women not employed by guvmints,.Equality for all female wukkas,as silly billy would say.

The Green-Left Weekly Radio Hour (lunchtime edition) formerly known as The World Today gives Greens beta male Adam Bandt plenty of taxpayer funded airtime to have a few cheap shots,

LOUISE YAXLEY: And despite Mr Abbott’s four years of advocacy for a paid parental leave scheme for women, Mr Bandt says he is not convinced about Mr Abbott’s motives.

ADAM BANDT: Tony Abbott’s idea of women’s participation is, “Ladies, please bring a plate.” This is a man who has kept women out of his Cabinet, and who has spoken again equal representation of women, and the Greens are very suspicious of his motives.

This paid parental leave scheme from him is part of an attempt to change his image, and I’ve got to say I don’t think it will fool many people. I don’t think there will be many people in Australia who believe that the fighting boxer all of a sudden become a caring feminist simply because he wants to put forward a scheme designed to win himself some votes.

Even coming from a bloke who probably sits down to take a piss, you’ve got to say he has got this right.

I keep seeing this statistic that only 2% of women earning $100k plus are of child bearing age (whats that – under 45?). It doesn’t sound right. Where does it come from?

Inclined to agree James. In Canberra $100k isn’t really an unusually high income. My guess is of the women between 25 and 40 in the Cth public service, a good proportion (25%) would be on an income approaching, and in many cases, well exceeding that amount.

Naturally Canberra isn’t the best reference point, but the point stands.

Even coming from a bloke who probably sits down to take a piss, you’ve got to say he has got this right.

I think you’re totally off the mark. I think you can see from Abbott’s comments in the past that he is by no means a dry. His alleged social conservatism is a point of derision for the chardonnay class, but in truth, the guy genuinely believes in the family unit as the most important building block of society.

You might disagree with the policy he has created (there are legitimate arguments against it), but it is folly to suggest that he isn’t being sincere about this.

I’ll go a step further and say that PPL could well become Abbott’s gun-buyback — a move that burns significant political capital amongst many of his own core supporters that in the long run is regarded as a good move.

My wife stays at home. This policy is stealing my money to pay for different types of relationships. Why is Tony trying to break up families?

Haha… if you’ve got kids already and want to whinge about missing out on this benefit, keep in mind that the Family Tax Benefit has been significantly favouring you. Now *that* is an expensive form of middle-class welfare.

Haha… if you’ve got kids already and want to whinge about missing out on this benefit, keep in mind that the Family Tax Benefit has been significantly favouring you. Now *that* is an expensive form of middle-class welfare.

Not really. I don’t get any FTB at all. All I know is I pay for other people’s kids’ childcare, their schooling, and then my kids will pay for the pensions of all the selfish cunts who never procreated. Government is hard at work breaking up the traditional family, but I didn’t think Abbott would be part of it.

A question on PPL, anything in the proposal to deal with artificial arrangements to maximise entitlements, am sure lots of accoaccountants will be out there sharpening their pencils to show how some people can manipulate income to maximise their PPL.

A question on PPL, anything in the proposal to deal with artificial arrangements to maximise entitlements, am sure lots of accoaccountants will be out there sharpening their pencils to show how some people can manipulate income to maximise their PPL.

Good point – so many options for how people might package their salaries (vehicles, allowances, voluntary superannuation contributions). Also would it be based on one single form of employment, or total taxable income derived from work. If so, why wouldn’t the young lady pick up another 15 hours a week over weekends and evenings at a cafe for a few months to really push up their income.

A sheila on $150,000 pa is paying about $45,000 pa in income tax. With six months PPL she’ll get $75,000 in payments, of which about $22,500 will be recouped as income tax in the financial year she receives it. Thus she’ll get about $53,000 nett PPL. Since she’s paying about $45,000 in tax pa, this $53,000 nett PPL will be recouped in about 14 months once she’s back at work. She’ll then fund “society” every year thereafter since her $45,000 pa is mostly nett tax paid.

A woman on $40,000pa pays about $8000 tax pa, and will receive $20,000 pa PPL, of which about $4,000 will be recouped when she returns to work in that financial year = $16,000 nett PPL. Since she pays about $8000 pa tax, this nett amount will take about 24 months to recover, except that this $40K pa woman pays no nett tax in the first place and she will actually be sponging on the rest of us with her PPL in the same way she does every other year via her NO NETT TAX paid status..

The $150K woman is a far better return on Investment than the $40K woman. The $150K woman (in private industry) will generally produce a far more productive sprog than a toilet cleaner on $40K in Lakemba, or a trendoid Public Service chick on $150,000 (who will never repay the PPL since she is a sponge/drain on our taxes in the first place). Again a much better ROI.

Apart from these obvious financial advantages of paying PPL to women in middle management in private businesses, there is also the question of the whole trend toward women having careers, whilst also becoming mothers. Catallaxy Bloggers may have gut reactions against these two roles being combined (ie motherhood is for toilet cleaners from Lakemba ONLY), and do not appreciate that the $150pa sheila pays for “society” to function, via her taxes.

Better she forget working in private enterprise and become a PS leech, or else a toilet cleaner eh Cats?

If you can’t demonstrate that it would be Abbott’s PPL scheme driving a significant number of women earning $150,000+ to have kids – and that without it they wouldn’t have procreated – then your rationale sinks like a stone.

Apart from these obvious financial advantages of paying PPL to women in middle management in private businesses, there is also the question of the whole trend toward women having careers, whilst also becoming mothers. Catallaxy Bloggers may have gut reactions against these two roles being combined (ie motherhood is for toilet cleaners from Lakemba ONLY), and do not appreciate that the $150pa sheila pays for “society” to function, via her taxes.

Not very well thought-out replies from Oh come on nor Dot (thus far; though there’s still time to reconsider)

The “return on investment” is in getting decent kids instead of only those born to low-income Centrelinkers, and to Public Service slappers who will then become natural-born bludgers like their parents. Or else low grade morons like their toilet-cleaner parents. These types of kids will be far more likely to grow into productive adults.

As women have moved up the ladder in the private sector it should be clear to all who see beyond today’s hot-button issues, that these women could also be producing like-minded kids, and not moaning that A) Public Service slappers get the dough so they should’ve become Public Service slappers too, and B) They settled on a private employment path and are being forced to pay for the Public Service slappers and Centrelinkers and toilet cleaners from their taxes, but they y never get the same break themselves.

Is the intention of Dot and Oh come on etc to make the Public Service ever more attractive to women?

The most interesting aspect of dot’s comment is that he hasn’t thought it through, but has reacted nonetheless. Working women on $150,000pa support a lot of other women who simply devour the private-sector-women’s tax payments. Keeping them in private employ means a lifetime of positive tax payments from them…which is the “Return on Investment” that dot doesn’t appreciate. Let’s say 30 years at $50,000 tax per year = $1.5 million, which “may” be due/partly due to their careers not being derailed by child-bearing. Dot must think that everyone willing to forego $75,000, or $150,000, or $225,000 to receive $1.5 Million+ in extra taxes is a “f^ckwit”, eh? Ever looked in a mirror for confirmation?

As for Oh come on. you can Google….HILDA report 2003; ” Within this age-group (18-25) 5.2 per cent of employed women with access to paid maternity leave report becoming
pregnant within the given year, compared to 3.8 per cent of those without it.Among employed women aged 25 to 34 years, 13.4 per cent of women with access to maternity leave report becoming
pregnant within a given year, compared to 8.7 per cent of those without it. ” and so on.

“Google” just means “look it up on-line” before making an idiot of yourself. Ask Dot for that mirror when he’s through. I hope this helps.

Oh…and the kicker… HILDA…352
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LABOUR ECONOMICS
DECEMBER 2006
Australia’s realised birth rate does fall short of the optimal replacement rate and there
is scope for current maternity leave policies to be extended to the whole of the labour
force, this theoretical model is applicable to the Australian context.
It is a distinct feature that maternity leave can achieve this impact on fertility
without necessarily detracting from long-run labour supply. In comparison, other types
of financial support available to women who have children (e.g. Family Tax Benefit
or means-tested maternity payments) increase the private benefit of having children,
but effectively also decrease the benefit of labour force participation (Earle, 1999;
McDonald, 2001a). Even the flat-rate ‘Baby Bonus’ payment made available to all
new mothers, unconditional on employment, may draw women out of the labour force
as it is well-established that motherhood is associated with lower rates of labour force
participation (Leibowitz and Klerman, 1995.

“In contrast to these other maternity-related policies, maternity leave establishes
compatibility between motherhood and employment. This element of maternity leave
is important when examining the issue of the ageing population which requires policy
solutions that not merely promote population growth, but, more specifically, rebalance
the relative size of the dependent population to the size of the labour force. Although
the aged population comprise the bulk of the population dependent on public funding,
it is the expenditure demands of all non-working dependents, relative to the size of the
tax base, which are the real source of pressure on public funds (Campbell and
Charlesworth, 2004).”

What is it with you ALP types? Always hate well-paid working women, and want them out of the workforce ASAP eh? Just hate that they pay tens of thousands in nett tax; millions over their working lives, while spongers in the Public Service and on low incomes are pampered by those same taxes. Sound like your mindset Dot?

What is it with you ALP types? Always hate well-paid working women, and want them out of the workforce ASAP eh? Just hate that they pay tens of thousands in nett tax; millions over their working lives, while spongers in the Public Service and on low incomes are pampered by those same taxes. Sound like your mindset Dot?

Socialism is when other people’s money is paid to the bludgers. How is the part reinvestment of a well-paid working woman’s nett paid-taxes, so as to later receive millions in further nett taxes…spending other people’s money?

Feel free to recant. I’ve often said silly things after a few glasses of red, too early in the morning, so it’s no big deal. No-one will think less of you. Go on Dot, I’m sure we can still be friends.

BTW. What is it with Labor luvvies and A) Abbott’s Budgie Smugglers, and B) Sucking what’s in them?

No, you justified this on account of Abbott having to have command and control of labour supply, to pay for unsustainable pensions. You have made your bed and you will lie in it.

Feel free to recant. I’ve often said silly things after a few glasses of red, too early in the morning, so it’s no big deal. No-one will think less of you. Go on Dot, I’m sure we can still be friends.

No.

You’re a socialist and a liar.

Here is a good tax policy, moron.

The LDP will seek to:

Limit the federal government to defence, immigration, basic public services (eg passport services, regulation of hazardous materials, air and sea transport regulation), and assistance to the least well off.

Stop all transfers from the federal government to other levels of government, including grants from the pool of GST revenues.

With the associated savings, cut federal taxes by more than half, through:

So, the children of “toilet-cleaners” are waste of space, you disgusting jerk? What do you suggest, sterilising them perhaps – since I take it you are not volunteering to clean toilets yourself.

And here’s a tip, champ – many of those cleaners et al are hard-working migrants who do low paid jobs because they have no qualifications or theirs are not recognised – but they are doing it so that their kids can get an education and have much better jobs. And you know what? Those kids don’t end up bludging on society, because their parents sure as hell aren’t making those sacrifices only to let their kids sit around playing computer games all day.

Tell me that Manta is not the Alene Composta of the Conservative publicity machine…

Sounds about right.

It is certainly a social engineering, big government, tax churning elitist.

PPL to women on $150K pa is “socialism”? Huh?

Plain and simple, yes it is. The liberal approach would be general income tax relief courtesy of savage Commonwealth expenditure cuts. We can all pay for our own families thanks. We don’t need no stinking tax transfers and the army of APS moochers required to administer them.

Socialism is when other people’s money is paid to the bludgers. How is the part reinvestment of a well-paid working woman’s nett paid-taxes, so as to later receive millions in further nett taxes…spending other people’s money?

Let me stop you right there, because it’s not “reinvestment.” You claim there’s a financial return for the PPL but this is just a lie. There is no financial return on the money spent.

That’s not to say that there aren’t other benefits. Although I’m dubious, those are up for debate. But let’s get something crystal clear. It costs money. It doesn’t make money. It’s not an ‘investment.’

A muscle-man, Charles Atlas type is strolling along the beach in a pair of BS, with all the babes drooling as he struts on by.

A weedy eighty-pound weakling approaches him and says “Excuse me sir, but how can I get chicks like those to drool over me” to which the muscle-man replies “It’ll take years to get a body like mine, but why not try the old trick; a pair of footy socks rolled up and stuffed down the budgie smugglers to quickly grab the girls’ attention!”

Next day the eighty-pound weakling gives it ago, and is crestfallen to see and hear the beach babes pointing and laughing at him, especially at the socks.

The Charles Atlas guy takes him aside and gently whispers “Next time why not try putting them down the front of your smugglers, eh?”.

KM @ 30/4/14 4:52PMAs an older person thinking seriously of re-entering the workforce, this gives me a better chance over a younger woman being selected one would think. No chance of my becoming pregnant. Just how long is it since you’ve been in the workforce, KM? That sort of discrimination has been illegal for years now.

Johanna (11.20am). Nasty comment, with no basis in fact. What’s got you thinking the kids of “toilet cleaners” are awaste of space?

The toilet cleaners will all get the PPL, so that hardly matters, does it? Who says they won’t? It’s the middle-management sheilas who are being targetted by the reduction from $150K to $100K…and you are applauding? Why? Jealousy?

Why do you reckon a chick paying $45K a year in tax; about $37,000 of it nett tax, should be permanently milked by the toilet cleaners, and never get any of her own dough back? Well?

Yeah, I know….agreeing to pay PPL to women in decently-paid jobs is eugenics. What a loser!

The most interesting aspect of all this is that you reckon migrants do the toilet cleaning whilst non-migrants are the only sheilas on $150K per year. Ever get out and about Johanna?

Why do you reckon a chick paying $45K a year in tax; about $37,000 of it nett tax, should be permanently milked by the toilet cleaners, and never get any of her own dough back? Well?

stop it with the abuse of toilet cleaners, Mantaray.
I respect cleaners because they work hard in a necessary but unpleasant and low-status job. They scrub so you don’t have to. You make a mess? They clean it up. Lay off the class prejudice.

Hey Dot (12.42pm). I answered Johanna, and now you are replying for Johanna. Johanna is very very keen on the toilet cleaners getting the dough of better-paid ladies, and reckons it’s “eugenics” to not agree with the sentiment. Then you say, for Johanna “WE don’t believe in that stuff….etc”. What “WE”? Johanna is not you, is she/he Dot? This is a Socialist Forum shadow-blog now, is it, where it’s all we vs the dissenters?

For me, the PPL is somewhat similar to having my company-car. I earn income, pay various taxes. and then depreciate the car against them, claiming my depreciation as a reduction in taxable income, plus GST etc at year’s end. I get some of my taxes back!

I could drive the cheapest car around and only get $3-4000 deducted (= about a grand in tax reduction) but I don’t; I have a nice car and depreciate about $15,000 per year to receive something like $4500 back in tax. Naughty aren’t I; seeing one of the attractions of my job being my nice car and the big tax break.

I know; all the Cats reckon this should be banned (cheapest cars ONLY; if any at all) and that I should be in the Public Service driving one of their (our) Land Cruisers at public expense, eh Cats? Same argument as with the PPL, or what/

So, the children of “toilet-cleaners” are waste of space, you disgusting jerk? What do you suggest, sterilising them perhaps – since I take it you are not volunteering to clean toilets yourself.

That’s right, react with out thinking or reading. No one said that; no one even implied that. Everyone is immensely valuable. But we are only equal in our humanity, and efforts to force us to equality in other measures are inherently counter-productive. People should be valued for the differences and their strengths.

But that isn’t even the frame of what is being discussed. If a government is going to manipulate society — and near everything a government does will do so — by installing a PPL (or any other policy) it is utter stupidity to not consider the consequences on a societal scale.

The difference between the baby bonus and something like the tax exemption noted above are quite dramatic. Just because the individual implications are difficult to process, doesn’t give anyone the excuse not to consider the long term implications. Because they are going to occur, whether we consider them or not. Genetics will do that for you, every time.

I have really tried to make some sense out of the government’s rationales for this scheme.

I’ve always viewed this idea as a way to address the sub-replacement birth rate amongst better educated and more highly paid women. The bigger the pay rate, the bigger the prospective financial hit so there is one rationale.

1. The PM said he wants all women to have the same PPL conditions as the APS.However the APS is a career service and you can’t ( or you couldn’t in my day) leave and then return to the same level in another job. So there is a rationale for payment to keep women in the APS whereas the private sector has flexibility for the employer and employee. (Or should have if the government stays out of it.)
2. The issue seems really to be that these highly paid women don’t save and won’t save for the usually predictable event of a pregnancy. The solution to a saving problem is NOT a subsidy.
3. Its a pretty poor reason for avoiding having children because you don’t want to lose less than a year’s pay.
4. I can say all this because I had two children while employed full time at the level that would have qualified for the PM’s folly and I’ve worked in both government and private sectors. Its really not that hard if you enjoy your job and you enjoy having a family although “feminists” keep banging on about how hard it is.